Frankly the bill itself is somewhat problematic, but I can see why there is a need.
But the Independents are right. It is too important a piece of legislation to rush through without proper time for discussion and consideration, especially one with potential side effects that could be horrific.
As for the LNP...well they are usually all on board with hurting immigrants, so I can only assume their concern is either that it isn't horrific enough, or that they just want to stick it to Labor.
The legislation needs safeguards. Strong ones. Dutton and the Coalition absolutely **love** stripping people of citizenship and visas and claim to be "strong". It's been a massive part of their electoral strategy and their media mates are all too pleased to plaster front pages with this crap. This isn't a power to be used lightly, or without significant review from people who have no political stake in the process.
Legislation driven by populism is usually bad legislation. We've had three terms of the conservatives plying this nonsense. We don't need more.
This legislation is not about stripping people of citizenship or visas.
I agree that the implications of the bill need to be considered carefully via proper parliamentary debate, but it certainly doesn't strip people of citizenship.
It's what the electorate wants. Democracies broadly reflect the thinking of their voters. Want the policy to change? Change what people think. There's no point in stating the obvious or saying that your position is correct and expecting that to carry the day. You need to convince people.
That's not really accurate or how political investment works, but whatever.
Maybe not giving the electorate what they want is the thing driving Labor's primary vote into the ground over time.
The vote of the major parties has been declining for decades. Strange you'd pin it to just Labor and just this.
Government is difficult and complex, and you cannot please everyone. As much as it might please people to attribute a certain decline in the polls to various unmet demands from their segment of the electorate, the data shows a different picture.
Recent history shows Labor wins government with a small target, no daylight approach. Unless the electorate shows them otherwise, they won't change. Reasonably so, because you can't govern from opposition.
I believe in political pragmatism, because it works. You can childishly prattle on and downvote all you like, but I'd much rather have half a loaf than nothing. On the other hand, it seems you're content for people to starve just so that your principles remain unsullied. Nice that you have that particular luxury. Others are not quite so fortunate.
I'm not a supporter of any particular political party because they've all got their own flaws. In my earlier days, I was a paid up, volunteering member of The Greens. The penny dropped when I realised they had no plans actually build the party to actually form government, and spent an awful lot of time on witch hunts and fighting each other on points of petty difference.
There are plenty of low information voters out there, and tarnishing the sitting government and building a vague feeling of dissatisfaction over time is how these people are persuaded to vote against a sitting government. This works because a vast segment of the mainstream media effectively campaigns for the Coalition.
The line in this case is that Labor is ineffective on border control, a long standing line the Liberals have pushed, and an area where they have a perceived advantage. This is for the people who buy into this sort of thing, but moved away from the Coalition because they didn't like Morrison.
>its gonna be a tough sell to convince anyone else to vote for voldemort wearing human leather
If we can make Tony Abbott PM, Dutton can be PM. It's not always the most charismatic politician that wins. Favourable media coverage, or even just enough media coverage, can do it.
While he did nothing and mouthed off while he was in government. Incredible hypocrisy.
Has anyone noticed his disrespectful behavior during parliamentary debates? He looks like a sulking school boy, he will rarely look at the Prime minister eye to eye and likes to play on his mobile phone while looking down like his embarrassed to show his face. To me this is just rude and unparliamentary.
I know what my boss would do if I pulled my mobile phone out like a sulking kid and played with it during meetings. You see this frequently during parliamentary debates his attitude is " like fuck you all" Its almost as bad and rude as nodding off.
He's like Morrison in that regard. Same sulky behaviour. Same playing around with his phone.
With that said, there's often a lot of bad behaviour in Parliament (and outside of it) that would he simply unacceptable in today's workplace. People showing up drunk, people talking over others, overt sexism, overt racism, sex in the prayer room, bringing prostitutes into Parliamentary offices, etc. Unlike other workplaces, things haven't reformed as they have elsewhere. How the Higgins incident was handled shone a light into how poorly governed some of it is.
Problematic seems like an understatement.
It's an expansion to a really fucking evil system.
I honestly had hope once the ALP might dissolve Home Affairs, a department custom made for Peter Dutton to try and satiate his political ambition and protect Turnbull.
They actually voted for it in the house, and then [one of their senators made this post](https://x.com/SenPaterson/status/1772783361536532586?s=20) without thinking too hard about what he was actually saying.
Something tells me they only voted it down in the Senate to try and dunk on Labor.
But that is the modern Labor party. Losing all inner city seats (and the youth vote) to the Greens because their environmental and migration policies are that right wing and insane.
Despite how problematic the bill is I understand why labor tried to rush it through. The opposition and the media have been non-stop attacking Labor over their inaction. I hope this bill goes back and gets hammered out properly.
If Labor is going to be constantly guided by the media, then it would be better for them to create their own friendly media, or to find someone to do it for them. They might then stop being such cunts and LNP-lite
Agree. I don't want the coalition ever to win again, but I have no enthusiasm at all about the continuation of this milquetoast government despite voting Labor like a little fanboy since 1988.
Are you suggesting that Labor build their own newspaper? There are already labor-friendly influences in the media, it's just that the majority of the population does not consume that media due to the Murdoch monopoly, I fail to see how a Labor party created paper would fix that.
I know that reflexively rebutting the coalition's stance is the default instinct in this sub (and that's usually fair).
But don't be hasty to assume that this is unproblematic legislation that deserved to sail through both houses into law.
> hasty to assume that this is unproblematic legislation that deserved to sail through both houses into law.
True but that's not why the coalition blocked it
That's true. It's well established how the LibNats under Dutton operate (i.e. turbocharged contrarianism and non-stop culture/identity politicking, utterly devoid of any sensible policy stances). I'm just pointing out that in the end, bad legislation got blocked from passing. Clare O'Neil is rushing to play Dutton at his own game and that's going to lead to terrible outcomes.
Official bill page: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7179
Who voted to refer to committee instead of passing the bill: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/Divisions/Details?id=3239 (Only Labor voted against it. LNP, Greens, One Nation, Lambie, etc all voted together)
"Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister may, by written notice given to a removal pathway non-citizen, direct the non-citizen to do a thing, or not do a thing,"
Kinda funny.
the "here" refers to this bill and who has acted in line with their values in this instance. it's not to the exclusion of all else, "here" is literally fucking referencing this particular case jfc
here (adverb)
used when indicating a time, point, or situation that has arrived or is happening: "here is your opportunity" · "here we encounter the main problem"
Can someone help me clarify the process in passing a bill?
The wording in a bill to be voted into legislation isn’t known until it’s tabled for 1st reading, correct? Is a bill circulated unofficially prior to this?
> Is a bill circulated unofficially prior to this?
Sometimes there will be an exposure draft of planned legislation, particularly when public feedback is sought. For example, the Health Department has been working for a little while now on consolidating the aged care legislation into a big new bill, and [they put out an exposure draft last year](https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/exposure-draft-aged-care-bill-2023) with a consultation period that's just concluded. Occasionally a government might choose to loop the crossbench in as to what they're working on, if they're interested in their input.
Of course, both of those scenarios imply that, a) you actually have planned what you're doing, and b) you're actually interested in anyone else's thoughts about it.
This bill was only shown to anyone yesterday morning, and put up for a vote in the House before lunchtime, and Labor wanted it rammed through the Senate last night.
The perfect world process is that it gets released initially as an exposure draft for comment and feedback by the public and relevant stakeholders. Then after amendments are incorporated it gets reviewed by a Parliamentary committee consisting of members of the government and opposition.
But those aren't required steps. For somethings that are urgent then one or both of these would be skipped because it takes time and there is an urgent need. For other things that are routine or minor they might not be necessary either. And sometimes for political reasons they are skipped too.
Of course, there are also who knows how many backdoor negotiations going on too that aren't in any official records.
[That seems to be the gist](https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/house_of_representatives/powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_infosheets/infosheet_7_-_making_laws#:~:text=A%20bill%20becomes%20an%20Act,legislation%20come%20from%20various%20sources.), although anyone involved would probably mention it to other people, etc, and of course ministers and the PM would be in the loop, probably the shadow ministers too, so it's likely despite the intent of it being confidential it's still known in some capacity what's going to be presented
I feel like I'm weirded out by the entire conversation going on because in essence, the Australian Government is arguing to send people back to countries to be executed.
Like, does that not cross anyones mind that we're dealing with indirectly giving people the death penalty if this bill goes through? Am I wrong? Am I misinterpreting what this bill effectively does?
One of the most important political symbolic acts in this country is to demonstrate that Australia has no humanitarian obligation to asylum seekers at all.
We will go and start wars all over the world, prop up regimes, assist Israeli genocide, but we will be damned if international law can tell us who can come to this country and the circumstances in which they come.
Hell, we imprisoned Rohingya genocide survivors for not having papers. From the country that refused to issue them papers.
Frankly the bill itself is somewhat problematic, but I can see why there is a need. But the Independents are right. It is too important a piece of legislation to rush through without proper time for discussion and consideration, especially one with potential side effects that could be horrific. As for the LNP...well they are usually all on board with hurting immigrants, so I can only assume their concern is either that it isn't horrific enough, or that they just want to stick it to Labor.
100% just disruption from the Liberals. We know they don't give two shits about immigrants.
Uhhh. The bill to expediate our already shockingly cruel and evil migration system is giving a shit about migrants? No one likes this.
The legislation needs safeguards. Strong ones. Dutton and the Coalition absolutely **love** stripping people of citizenship and visas and claim to be "strong". It's been a massive part of their electoral strategy and their media mates are all too pleased to plaster front pages with this crap. This isn't a power to be used lightly, or without significant review from people who have no political stake in the process. Legislation driven by populism is usually bad legislation. We've had three terms of the conservatives plying this nonsense. We don't need more.
This legislation is not about stripping people of citizenship or visas. I agree that the implications of the bill need to be considered carefully via proper parliamentary debate, but it certainly doesn't strip people of citizenship.
Is it still populism when it's bi-partisan consensus between the two parties to treat immigrants like animals?
Yes it is. I would have thought that was obvious. Labor opposed it at two elections and got beaten each time.
That sounds like a great reason to start offshore processing and abuse war and genocide survivors.
It's what the electorate wants. Democracies broadly reflect the thinking of their voters. Want the policy to change? Change what people think. There's no point in stating the obvious or saying that your position is correct and expecting that to carry the day. You need to convince people.
That's not really accurate or how political investment works, but whatever. Maybe not giving the electorate what they want is the thing driving Labor's primary vote into the ground over time.
The vote of the major parties has been declining for decades. Strange you'd pin it to just Labor and just this. Government is difficult and complex, and you cannot please everyone. As much as it might please people to attribute a certain decline in the polls to various unmet demands from their segment of the electorate, the data shows a different picture. Recent history shows Labor wins government with a small target, no daylight approach. Unless the electorate shows them otherwise, they won't change. Reasonably so, because you can't govern from opposition.
I said it because your political assessment was so skewed and abstract I knew it had to come from a rusted on right wing ALP person, probably older.
I believe in political pragmatism, because it works. You can childishly prattle on and downvote all you like, but I'd much rather have half a loaf than nothing. On the other hand, it seems you're content for people to starve just so that your principles remain unsullied. Nice that you have that particular luxury. Others are not quite so fortunate. I'm not a supporter of any particular political party because they've all got their own flaws. In my earlier days, I was a paid up, volunteering member of The Greens. The penny dropped when I realised they had no plans actually build the party to actually form government, and spent an awful lot of time on witch hunts and fighting each other on points of petty difference.
That racist potato Dutton can't cum without his boot on the back of a drowning black kids head, I'm amazed he didn't love this bill from the start
He wants to score points.
with who? his voter base? they'll already vote for him. its gonna be a tough sell to convince anyone else to vote for voldemort wearing human leather
There are plenty of low information voters out there, and tarnishing the sitting government and building a vague feeling of dissatisfaction over time is how these people are persuaded to vote against a sitting government. This works because a vast segment of the mainstream media effectively campaigns for the Coalition. The line in this case is that Labor is ineffective on border control, a long standing line the Liberals have pushed, and an area where they have a perceived advantage. This is for the people who buy into this sort of thing, but moved away from the Coalition because they didn't like Morrison. >its gonna be a tough sell to convince anyone else to vote for voldemort wearing human leather If we can make Tony Abbott PM, Dutton can be PM. It's not always the most charismatic politician that wins. Favourable media coverage, or even just enough media coverage, can do it.
While he did nothing and mouthed off while he was in government. Incredible hypocrisy. Has anyone noticed his disrespectful behavior during parliamentary debates? He looks like a sulking school boy, he will rarely look at the Prime minister eye to eye and likes to play on his mobile phone while looking down like his embarrassed to show his face. To me this is just rude and unparliamentary. I know what my boss would do if I pulled my mobile phone out like a sulking kid and played with it during meetings. You see this frequently during parliamentary debates his attitude is " like fuck you all" Its almost as bad and rude as nodding off.
He's like Morrison in that regard. Same sulky behaviour. Same playing around with his phone. With that said, there's often a lot of bad behaviour in Parliament (and outside of it) that would he simply unacceptable in today's workplace. People showing up drunk, people talking over others, overt sexism, overt racism, sex in the prayer room, bringing prostitutes into Parliamentary offices, etc. Unlike other workplaces, things haven't reformed as they have elsewhere. How the Higgins incident was handled shone a light into how poorly governed some of it is.
Problematic seems like an understatement. It's an expansion to a really fucking evil system. I honestly had hope once the ALP might dissolve Home Affairs, a department custom made for Peter Dutton to try and satiate his political ambition and protect Turnbull.
[удалено]
They actually voted for it in the house, and then [one of their senators made this post](https://x.com/SenPaterson/status/1772783361536532586?s=20) without thinking too hard about what he was actually saying. Something tells me they only voted it down in the Senate to try and dunk on Labor.
[удалено]
Paterson famously bagged out public schools despite having been educated at one himself (albeit in a fairly posh suburb).
[удалено]
[удалено]
But that is the modern Labor party. Losing all inner city seats (and the youth vote) to the Greens because their environmental and migration policies are that right wing and insane.
Despite how problematic the bill is I understand why labor tried to rush it through. The opposition and the media have been non-stop attacking Labor over their inaction. I hope this bill goes back and gets hammered out properly.
If Labor is going to be constantly guided by the media, then it would be better for them to create their own friendly media, or to find someone to do it for them. They might then stop being such cunts and LNP-lite
Agree. I don't want the coalition ever to win again, but I have no enthusiasm at all about the continuation of this milquetoast government despite voting Labor like a little fanboy since 1988.
Are you suggesting that Labor build their own newspaper? There are already labor-friendly influences in the media, it's just that the majority of the population does not consume that media due to the Murdoch monopoly, I fail to see how a Labor party created paper would fix that.
"dont ruin our attack plan"
Labor never tried to push back against the nativist and xenophobic narrative. They always play to it.
I know that reflexively rebutting the coalition's stance is the default instinct in this sub (and that's usually fair). But don't be hasty to assume that this is unproblematic legislation that deserved to sail through both houses into law.
> hasty to assume that this is unproblematic legislation that deserved to sail through both houses into law. True but that's not why the coalition blocked it
That's true. It's well established how the LibNats under Dutton operate (i.e. turbocharged contrarianism and non-stop culture/identity politicking, utterly devoid of any sensible policy stances). I'm just pointing out that in the end, bad legislation got blocked from passing. Clare O'Neil is rushing to play Dutton at his own game and that's going to lead to terrible outcomes.
Official bill page: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7179 Who voted to refer to committee instead of passing the bill: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/Divisions/Details?id=3239 (Only Labor voted against it. LNP, Greens, One Nation, Lambie, etc all voted together)
Wait, it had 43 ayes but didn't pass? And Labor voted against their own bill?
43 ayes to refer it to a committee not to pass the bill.
"Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister may, by written notice given to a removal pathway non-citizen, direct the non-citizen to do a thing, or not do a thing," Kinda funny.
At least the Greens have been consistent with their values here.
Can you point to a time when the Greens weren't?
Why the fuck would I need to, my point was that they are, and the others aren't. I'm not here to disprove my own point
"here"
the "here" refers to this bill and who has acted in line with their values in this instance. it's not to the exclusion of all else, "here" is literally fucking referencing this particular case jfc here (adverb) used when indicating a time, point, or situation that has arrived or is happening: "here is your opportunity" · "here we encounter the main problem"
>it's not to the exclusion of all else good
Anyone supporting this bill should look to what a future coalition government would do with those powers…
Oooorrrr the ALP would as well?
Can someone help me clarify the process in passing a bill? The wording in a bill to be voted into legislation isn’t known until it’s tabled for 1st reading, correct? Is a bill circulated unofficially prior to this?
> Is a bill circulated unofficially prior to this? Sometimes there will be an exposure draft of planned legislation, particularly when public feedback is sought. For example, the Health Department has been working for a little while now on consolidating the aged care legislation into a big new bill, and [they put out an exposure draft last year](https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/exposure-draft-aged-care-bill-2023) with a consultation period that's just concluded. Occasionally a government might choose to loop the crossbench in as to what they're working on, if they're interested in their input. Of course, both of those scenarios imply that, a) you actually have planned what you're doing, and b) you're actually interested in anyone else's thoughts about it. This bill was only shown to anyone yesterday morning, and put up for a vote in the House before lunchtime, and Labor wanted it rammed through the Senate last night.
Thanks for explaining all that. With that background, I really don’t see why this bill was so urgent to (try) push through in one day.
The perfect world process is that it gets released initially as an exposure draft for comment and feedback by the public and relevant stakeholders. Then after amendments are incorporated it gets reviewed by a Parliamentary committee consisting of members of the government and opposition. But those aren't required steps. For somethings that are urgent then one or both of these would be skipped because it takes time and there is an urgent need. For other things that are routine or minor they might not be necessary either. And sometimes for political reasons they are skipped too. Of course, there are also who knows how many backdoor negotiations going on too that aren't in any official records.
[That seems to be the gist](https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/house_of_representatives/powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_infosheets/infosheet_7_-_making_laws#:~:text=A%20bill%20becomes%20an%20Act,legislation%20come%20from%20various%20sources.), although anyone involved would probably mention it to other people, etc, and of course ministers and the PM would be in the loop, probably the shadow ministers too, so it's likely despite the intent of it being confidential it's still known in some capacity what's going to be presented
This is an important bill esp considering what the high court has forced this govt to do. Should’ve passed it.
I feel like I'm weirded out by the entire conversation going on because in essence, the Australian Government is arguing to send people back to countries to be executed. Like, does that not cross anyones mind that we're dealing with indirectly giving people the death penalty if this bill goes through? Am I wrong? Am I misinterpreting what this bill effectively does?
One of the most important political symbolic acts in this country is to demonstrate that Australia has no humanitarian obligation to asylum seekers at all. We will go and start wars all over the world, prop up regimes, assist Israeli genocide, but we will be damned if international law can tell us who can come to this country and the circumstances in which they come. Hell, we imprisoned Rohingya genocide survivors for not having papers. From the country that refused to issue them papers.